9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 84X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect the Assessing Officer to delete the late fees levied under section 234E of the I.T. Act and interest thereon charged under section 220(2) of the I.T. Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 60,61,62,63,64, And 65/LKW/2023 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2023 - Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member And Shri Anadee Nath Misshra, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Shubham Rastogi, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri Harish Gidwani, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER BENCH: (A) Appeal in I.T.A. No.60/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 against the impugned appellate order dated 22.12.2022 vide DIN Order No. ITBA/ NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048180127(1) of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [ ld. CIT(A) for short]. Appeal in I.T.A. No.61/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 17.1.2023 vide DIN Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048851666(1) of ld. CIT(A). Appeal in I.T.A. No.62/LKO/2023 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2015-16 against the impugned appellate order dated 22.12.2022 vide DIN Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048171118(1) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 (2nd quarter in Form 26Q) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computation of Fees and failure for payment of Fee u/s 200A of IT Act was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 3. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.62/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 21800 u/s 234E o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was brought on statue w.e.f 01.06.2015 and thus the said amendment is prospective in nature. 5. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC erred in relying on the judgments pertaining to constitutional validity of section 234E without appreciating that the issue of constitutional validity was never challenged before him and the issue involved in the appeal was w.r.t date of applicability of section 234E of IT Act. 6. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in passing the order, contrary to facts, law and principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient time and opportunity to have its say on the reasons relied upon the Ld. CIT(Appeals). I.T.A. No.64/LKO/2023: 1. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in confirming levy of late fees of Rs. 22600 u/s 234E of IT act and interest thereon u/s 220(2) of IT act Rs. 16272/- in order passed u/s 154 read with 200A of IT Act pertaining to FY 2014-15 ( 4th quarter in Form 260) without appreciating that the late fee u/s 234E cannot be charged relating to period of tax deduction prior to 01.06.2015. 2. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not considering that the mechanism provided for computati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly covered in favour of the assessee by the following orders: (i) Order dated 26.7.2022 in the case of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2014-15 in I.T. Act Nos. 121 to 125/LKW/2022. (ii) Order dated 30.11.2022 in the case of Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer(TDS)-II for Assessment Years 2013-14 2015-16 in I.T. Act Nos. 103 to 107/LKW/2021. (iii) Order dated 10.10.2018 in the case of Dr. Saumya Singh vs. ACIT for Assessment Year 2015-16 in I.T. Act Nos.793, 794 795/LKW/2017. (iv) Fatheraj Singhvi vs. Union of India [2016] 73 taxmann.com 252 (Karnataka). (v) United Metals vs. Income-tax Officer (TDS) [2022] 137 taxmann.com 115 (Kerala). (vi) Additional DIGP vs. Dy. CIT (TDS), [2020] 120 taxmann.com 284 (Delhi Trib.). (B.1) The learned Senior Departmental Representative for the Revenue [ ld. Sr. D.R. for short] did not dispute the submissions made by the ld. A.R. for the assessee, that the issues in dispute in these appeals are squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the aforesaid orders in the cases of Shivansh Infraestate Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (supra), Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra). However, he drew our attention to the following facts contained in the synopsis filed during the appellate proceedings (titled as Brief Facts of the Case ): With due respect, it is prayed that Ld. C.I.T. (A), NFAC treated the present appeal in Form 2403 as infructuous by stating that the appellant has filed two appeals for the same quarter i.e. Qtr.-3 and for the same financial year i.e. F.Y- 2014-15. It is prayed that Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not consider that the Appellant had filed two separate appeals for the Quarter-3 for F. Y-2014-15 which were pertaining to two separate forms viz Form 2403 and Form 2603. The Form 2403 appeal pertains to TDS Returns filed for Salary deduction and Form 260 3 appeal pertains to TDS Returns filed for other than Salary deduction. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) decided the appeal filed for Form No. 2603 vide order dated 22.12.2022 and treated the appeal filed against processing of Form No. 2403 as infructuous by holding that the appeal filed in Form No. 24Q3 on 13.10.2021 against order u/s 200A/154 of I. T. Act dated 13.09.2021 is a duplicate appeal which has been filed twice. The Ld. C.I.T. (A) did not considered that there are separat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
